ETA: Just emailed the Wiscon concom about her being a GoH next year, and how I am NOT okay with that in light of this. No idea if it'll accomplish anything, of course, but it does make me feel uncomfortable/unsafe (and I'm not Muslim, it's got to be a tiny tiny fraction of how she's hurting directly-affected folk) so.

Going off the Wiscon contact page, since I wasn't sure who to write to, I wrote to concom35 [at] wiscon [dot] info.

<ETA2 So apparently people with less fuzzy brains can parse more of that post than I can, and it's EVEN WORSE than I thought. Wow. Apparently Ms Moon thinks the European settlers here were happy community-builders who were welcomed with open arms and... assimilated... or something. Also that the Native people of this continent don't exist?

I don't think this would ever hold up at this point because it would be very difficult to prove harm. But, in the age of the internet, things can snowball out of control to the point that real harm is apparent. I'm pretty sure a libelous statement doesn't disappear just because the libeled party has made their own statements. It would make the concept of libel a moot point. A misrepresentation is still a misrepresentation.

Repeating in part here. Dave, given that you have stopped even the semblance of constructive and/or respectful engagement, it is time you STFU here.

Note that you are not being silenced. You are more than welcome to take up the poor dear white bigot's cause in your own space if you like. You can even continue to misrepresent the First Amendment there if that makes you happy.

A misrepresentation may be a misrepresentation, but a speculation that is clearly labeled as such is not a misrepresentation. And I never claimed that the mere fact that the libeled party had made their own statements canceled out libel; what I said was that pointing directly to those statements would make it even harder for a claim of misrepresentation to stick. Frankly, I don't see how you can possibly claim that quoting (or linking to) someone's exact words and then speculating out loud as to the thoughts behind them counts as misrepresenting them. One can misrepresent someone else's position by making false claims as to what they actually said, but nobody's making any such claims here.

This is basically a repeat of RaceFail09's "POC are being loud, let's shut them up with legal threats". It's even more insidious in this case, in some ways, because intended targets are immigrants and thus inherently more legally vulnerable than US citizens.

It started with the danger signal of "Let's just talk reasonably about why you feel threatened By Moon using her free speech (to claim that Islam "unfits" its followers for citizenship here), shall we, and why this makes you want to threaten her free speech?

It went on to be all about Moon with her victims brushed entirely under the carpet.

I am still not convinced it is deliberate bad faith, but it is most certainly not good faith, so it's unwelcome.